alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 TVIA, INC. CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION I, Eli Porat, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Tvia, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known
to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures
as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. Date: November 11, 2004/s/ Eli PoratEli PoratChief Executive Officer and President
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 21, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 13089]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03521]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Amended Notice of 
Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National 
Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Maximizing 
Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers, February 
23, 2024, 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., National Institutes of Health, 6705 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 which was published in the Federal 
Register on January 18, 2024, FR Document No. 2024-01294, 89 FRN 4614.
    This notice is being amended to change the SRO/Executive Secretary 
and Contact Person. Nawazish Naqvi, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood 
Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, Room 
208-Y, Bethesda MD 20817, 301-451-6992, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ae4ebfdebf0e3f9e2a4e4ebfbfce3cae4e3e2a4ede5fc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f9f6e0f6edfee4ffb9f9f6e6e1fed7f9feffb9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>. The 
meeting is closed to the public.

    Dated: February 15, 2024.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-03521 Filed 2-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
exv4w2



 





EXHIBIT 4.2




Amendment No. 1 to Assisted Living Concepts, Inc. 2002 Incentive Award Plan



The Board of Directors and Compensation Committee of Assisted Living Concepts,
Inc. (the “Company”) approved the following amendment to the Company’s 2002
Incentive Award Plan (the “Stock Option Plan”) on March 31, 2004 increasing the
aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the Stock Option Plan to
750,000.



     1. Section 2.1(a) of the Stock Option Plan is hereby amended to provide in
its entirety as follows:




      2.1 Shares Subject to Stock Option Plan




      (a) The shares of stock subject to Awards shall be Common Stock,
initially shares of the Company’s Common Stock. Subject to adjustment as
provided in Section 11.3, the aggregate number of such shares which may
be issued upon exercise of such Options or rights or upon any such Awards
under the Plan shall not exceed 750,000. The shares of Common Stock
issuable upon exercise of such Options or rights or upon any such awards
may be either previously authorized but unissued shares or treasury
shares.
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Vanity Enterprises, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

July__,2004
Exhibit 32.1
Chief Executive and Financial Officer Certification (Section 906)


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18U.S.C.,SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002),  I, the  undersigned  Chief  Executive and
Financial Officer of Zkid Network Company, (the "Company"), hereby certify that,
to the best of my knowledge,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company
for the period ended  September 30, 2004 (the "Report")  fully complies with the
requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934
and that information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial  condition  and results of operation of the Company.  A
signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 has been
provided  to the  registrant  and will be retained  by it and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Dated:  November 19, 2004
                                              /s/ Donald Weisberg
                                              ---------------------------
                                              Donald Weisberg
                                              Chief Executive Officer
                                              Chief Financial Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 22, 2010

d1115 

# Order

November 22, 2010

141577

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141577 COA: 296529 Midland CC: 04-001853-FH BRIAN SCOTT URBANAWIZ, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appe al the April 22, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit
4.8


 


New US Originator Accession Agreement


 


To:                              Security Agent


 


From:                  A.S.A.P. Software Express, Inc.


 


Master
Definitions and Framework Deed (dated 27 September 2000 as amended and
restated on 28 September 2001, 18 July 2002 and
16 April 2003) (the  Master Definitions and Framework
Deed)


 


We refer to Clause 4 of the Master
Definitions and Framework Deed.


 


This Agreement shall have expressly and
specifically incorporated into it the provisions set out in the Master
Definitions and Framework deed (hereafter referred to as the Provisions), as
though the same were set out in full in this Agreement mutatis mutandis and subject to English
law.  In the event of any conflict
between the provisions of this Agreement and the Provisions, this Agreement
shall prevail.


 


With effect from the date specified below,
A.S.A.P. Software Express, Inc. incorporated in the United States with
registered number 5358-166-8 hereby agrees to become an Additional US
Originator and to be bound by the terms of:


 


1.                                       the Master Definitions and Framework Deed;


 


2.                                       the Servicing Agreement dated 27 September 2000, as amended and
restated on 28 September 2001 and 18 July 2002;


 


3.                                       the Deed of Amendment (English Law Governed Transaction Documents)
dated 18 July 2002;


 


4.                                       the US Contribution Agreement dated as of 28 September 2001 as
amended and restated on 18 July 2002;


 


5.                                       the amended and restated limited liability company agreement (the
“LLC Agreement”) dated as of 18 July 2002;


 


6.                                       the US Collection Account Agreement dated as of 28 September 2001
as amended and restated on 18 July 2002; and


 


7.                                       the Lock Box and Assigned Account Agreement Letter of Amendment
dated 18 July 2002,


 


subject
to and in accordance with Clause 4 of the Master Definitions and Framework
Deed.


 


The following is the address for notices of
the proposed Additional US Originator:


 

















 


A.S.A.P. Software Express, Inc.

C/o CT Corp System

208 So. LaSalle Street

Chicago, IL 60604


 


Copy:


 


A.S.A.P. Software Express, Inc.

850 Ashbury Drive

Buffalo Grove, IL 60089

Attention:  Kim Stuart, VP Finance

Facsimile:  +1 847 465 3277


 


A.S.A.P. Software Express, Inc.
Bodemstraat 11

bus1, 3830 Wellen, Belgium

Attn:  Raf Monnen

Facsimile:  +32 11 37 6044


 


A.S.A.P.
Software Express, Inc.
Hoogoorddreef 62

1101 BE Amsterdam ZO


Attn:  Marcel
Graven

Facsimile:  +31 20 651 10 17


 


This Agreement is governed by English law.


 


	
  By:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Authorised Signatory of A.S.A.P. Software
  Express, Inc.

  



 


Date:                    16 April 2003
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **1 -**  **6037**

JAMES VANG , P etitioner

– Appell ant ,

v. JON OZMI N T , Director of SCDC; WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents

– Appell ees .

Appeal from the Unit ed States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 0 : 0 8

- c v - 0 282 9

- RMG )

Submitted : March 31 , 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER , SHEDD, and AG EE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion

.
James Vang, Appellant Pro Se
. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina , for Appellee s . Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: James Vang seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recomme ndation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court’s order denying Vang’s motion to recons ider . The order s are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006) . A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional rig ht.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is deba table, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vang has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Vang’s mo tion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.0


            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The Board of Directors
Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Nos. 333-101898, 333-64110, 333-18051 and 333-121468) on Form S-8 and
registration statements (Nos. 333-01535, 333-32093, 333-46117, 333-58269,
333-30818 and 333-67506) on Form S-3 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of our
report dated August 17, 2004, except as to Note 2(a) and 2(b) of the Notes to
Consolidated Financial Statement, which are as of November 10, 2004 and
September 23, 2005, respectively, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2004, and
2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders'
equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended June
30, 2004, and the related consolidated financial statement schedule, which
report appears in the June 30, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 2) of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Our report refers to the Company's restatement of its consolidated financial
statements as of and for the year ended June 30, 2004.

/s/ KPMG LLP



Short Hills, New Jersey
September 26, 2005


                                      E-2
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1370 

To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers enacted by the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Mr. BOUSTANY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the 

Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within 

the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the annual fee on health insurance providers 

enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ANNUAL FEE ON HEALTH INSUR4 ANCE PROVIDERS. 

5 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 

6 amended by striking section 9010. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSKD9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, George W. Hebard III, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 of Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit
to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|April 24, 2015 | /s/ George W. Hebard III                    
|-------------- | --------------------------------------------
|               | George W. Hebard III                        
|               | Interim Principal Executive Officer, Interim
|               | Chief Operating Officer and Secretary       
|               | (Principal Executive Officer)
|   | Certification      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | as      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|

|   | of      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 |
|--------|----------------------------------------|

| /s/ William      G. Smith, Jr. |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|
| William      G. Smith, Jr.          |   |
|  Chairman,      President and  |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer        |   |
NUM BER 13-0 8-00 472- CR 

### COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ RON A LD EVE RET T BA REF IELD , A pp ellan t, v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On a p p ea l f ro m th e 14 8t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd B en av ide s M emo rand um Opin ion Pe r Cu riam Appel lan t, Ron ald Ev erett Barefiel d, by and throug h his attor ney , has f il ed a motio n to dis mis s h isappeal bec ause he no lon g er des ires to prosec ute i t. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 42. 2(a). W it h o u tp a s sing on the m erits of the case , we grant the mot ion to dismiss pursua nt t o Tex as Rul e of Appel lat e Procedu re 42.2 (a ) and di smi ss the appeal
. Hav ing2

dis mis sed the a ppeal at a p p e llant 'sreq uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h. PERC UR IAM
Do not p ubl is h. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.2( b)
. Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s 3 0th d ay

of Oct ober , 200 8.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4468



# 
F REDDIEL EEG ILL , S R .,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

David A. Faber, District Judge. (CR-00-185) Submitted: November 12, 2002 Decided: December 3, 2002 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Brian J. Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Monica K.Schwartz, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION
PER CURIAM: Freddie Lee Gill, Sr., appeals the district court’s order revoking hissupervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Gill’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gill has filed a pro se supplemental brief merely citing to 4th Cir. R. 36(c),*which we find meritless. Finding the issue raised by counsel is without merit and discerning no other error in the record below, we affirm.Generally, we review the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley , 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992). However, because Gill did not object to the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error, see United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993) (finding relief available only if error is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriouslyaffects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings), and find none. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir. 1995). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking supervised release and imposing sentence. This courtrequires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade- *Rule 36(c) states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 U NITED S TATES v. G ILLquately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED 3 U NITED S TATES v. G ILL